3 ms·
Yes, yes that's exactly what happened. Apple had nothing to do with it. And that charade they put up about suing then not suing, etc, was not a charade at all.
by x5n1 11y ago
Yes, yes that's exactly what happened. Apple had nothing to do with it. And that charade they put up about suing then not suing, etc, was not a charade at all. /s
- janekm 11y agoI'm continually baffled by the pathological disdain some people like yourself seem to show towards Apple... Is it the cognitive dissonance that "Google does no evil", therefore if Apple is seen working for the privacy of their users (which they have both sound business reasons and I have no reason to doubt moral convictions to do), where Google does not, then they must have a hidden agenda?
- x5n1 11y agoi said nothing about google, i am cynical about the whole industry in terms of its collusion with the government. you sound like an apple fan boy.
- janekm 11y agoFair enough, the Google comment was unfounded (and I do believe that many at Google also have strong convictions to protect their customers' privacy but it's a lot harder to do when your business model depends on storing your customers data in clear-text on your servers). Personally I am disturbed by the continual government assault on the security of personal data and I believe that companies like Apple are our strongest stalwart against it. I may be a bit of an "Apple fan boy", indeed.
- mindslight 11y agoIt's great that Apple is a company with lots of money that can stand a chance in court and all that, but that also means they're a government-legible single point of failure. Their business model is still "administer our users' devices". While this is much better than Google's "surveil our users", maintaining their privileged access puts their users at risk, as highlighted by this recent battle.
- ceejayoz 11y agoIt seems fairly clear that Apple's trying to engineer out as much of their being a single point of failure as possible.
- mindslight 11y agoI haven't heard of any plans of making the updating process more self-controlled (eg allowing users compare checksums with friends before updating, or additional third-party signatures), or hardening their firmware against local tampering (since their security model incorporates trusted computing). The references to "secure enclave" seem mostly for comparison rather than any direct analysis, and it seems like another general-purpose easily-updateable chip. It doesn't seem like it's actually possible to do all that much without releasing source for a TCB, especially with the possibility of NSL (etc) mandating secret backdoors for every device. But maybe I have just missed the recent news.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y agoI look forward to apple saying that they apply the same stance in the case of investigating miscounduct or if the CWA or Prospect in the UK started organizing apple store staff :-)
- r3bl 11y agoI completely understand your Google argument. Whenever I say that I put Google in the same basket as Facebook/Apple/(as of recently) Microsoft, I get lots and lots of people telling me how Google is not bad. In fact, in my mind, Google is even worse than the rest of the companies, because Google is the only one that has the power not only to collect my data, but to use that data to tweak my online experience. Not just on their products, but across the majority of the Internet (yes, I'm talking about their ads). I turned every single type of Google tracking off and I still feel uncomfortable using their services that are impossible to avoid completely.